Ferret's link to prairie dogs underlies opposition

Friday

Jul 26, 2013 at 6:00 AM

A safe harbor agreement allowing landowners to benefit from fostering the black-footed ferret — claimed by some to be the most endangered mammal in North America — is a model of voluntary wildlife conservation that creates new revenue streams for ranchers, but it is also controversial.

By Candace KrebsContributing Writer

A safe harbor agreement allowing landowners to benefit from fostering the black-footed ferret — claimed by some to be the most endangered mammal in North America — is a model of voluntary wildlife conservation that creates new revenue streams for ranchers, but it is also controversial.

In what one Eastern Colorado farmer termed the "circle of life," black-footed ferrets rely on prairie dogs for their prey, and where there is ferret habitat, there will be prairie dogs — lots of prairie dogs.

"I don't know of anybody in my area that's in favor of it," said Susan Leach of Arriba, who was attending the mid-summer meeting of the Colorado Farm Bureau. She just recently put away her crutches after stepping into a ground hole on her family's property and injuring her foot.

"Prairie dogs will take over 40 acres of grass in nothing," she added.On a summer ranch tour hosted by the Colorado Independent Cattle Growers Association, Jay Jolly, who ranches in the Hugo area, made it clear how he felt about the ferret-harboring plan.

"It's ridiculous," he said emphatically.

"So much of this is stuff we have no choice about," he added later. "It's scary. It's like we don't actually own anything anymore."

"It's just another nightmare for us," concurred Tom Hendrix, a rancher from Wray who recalled being contracted by the government to eradicate prairie dogs back in the early 1970s.

In order to ensure survival of the black-footed ferret, "you can't do anything to those prairie dog towns," Hendrix said. "You can't disturb their habitat. And that means you can't control them. When they get old enough, the young ones have to go somewhere. Overnight, you'll have a new town."

The CICA organization has official policy opposing the ferret proposal.Harry Thompson, who hosted the group's ranch tour northwest of Sterling, said he was shocked to learn from wildlife officials that 10,000 prairie dogs are required to support one pair of ferrets.

That quickly raised a red flag with him, although he said he is pleased that the ferrets are being bred successfully in captivity at Colorado State University.

Big acreages needed

At the Farm Bureau meeting held recently in Pueblo, Ken Morgan, private lands program manager for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Service, explained that 2,000 contiguous acres at a minimum are needed to harbor the ferret, based on biological carrying capacity and to allow for what he called "territorial space."

He suggested neighboring landowners look into combining acreage to meet the threshold for participation. He added that wildlife managers would be in charge of confining the prairie dogs within the perimeter of enrolled areas.

One Farm Bureau committee member wondered optimistically if harboring the ferrets might be a way to reduce the prairie dogs in places where they are already problematic.

Don't count on it, was Morgan's response.

"In ideal conditions, they will keep each other in balance," he said; however, ferrets are highly susceptible to something called sylvatic plague, and conditions in the wild are rarely ideal.

Morgan said he knew of only four landowners who had expressed interest so far.

Ultimately, CFB members have chosen to oppose the ferret reintroduction plan, which is awkward for the group since they normally lobby in tandem with the Colorado Cattlemen's Association. CCA partnered with wildlife officials to formulate the safe harbor agreement.Morgan gently chided CFB members, saying their formal opposition conflicted with the group's policy of supporting voluntary wildlife conservation efforts.

"If we can make sure landowners receive some degree of compensation for managing and recovering a wildlife species, and on a voluntary basis, why wouldn't we do that?" he said.

"It's one of the strongest safe harbor agreements I've been involved with," he added. "It's no harm, no foul. It allows incentive payments to landowners who protect the animals on private property, but at any time they can opt out, and we will come and pick those animals up."Dick Ray of Pagosa Springs is a member of both CCA and CFB and was willing to take a stab at why there's a difference in policy between the two groups.

"Maybe the cattle will graze around them," he said of the prairie dogs. "But I've had prairie dogs destroy 60 acres of irrigated pasture. They eat everything that's good and what's left is noxious weeds and invasive species. I've spent the last two years rehabbing that ground."

In the environment and wildlife advisory committee, some Farm Bureau members worried that reintroducing the nearly extinct ferrets now would lead to future designations of critical habitat later, subjecting them to land use oversight, restrictions and increased costs."If we start with the ferrets, what's after that?" another member wondered aloud. "Will we be steamrolled into something we don't want?"

Morgan reminded the committee that any wildlife reintroduction proposal requires approval by the state legislature. In June, Governor John Hickenlooper signed just such a bill, which authorizes the state to proceed with reintroduction of the ferrets using the new safe harbor plan.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.